Estimating The Impact Of The Homeland Investment Act Date Published: 14 Sep 2004, 23:18 Legislation before Congress would introduce a one-year reduction from 35% to 5.25% in the tax on repatriated earnings from offshore subsidiaries. Passage of the bill before the election is not likely and it is generally considered to have an approximately 50% chance of passing afterwards. Industry has lobbied strongly for the bill and should it succeed US corporations would have a strong incentive to repatriate. To the degree that earnings are not held in cash this could necessitate bond issuance in order to monetize profits. Speculation of this has sparked fear of technical pressure on US corporate bond spreads. Although the bill would certainly increase repatriation and issuance, we believe its impact on the bond market is highly uncertain and easily overstated. When the potential for companies to continue to hold earnings offshore to facilitate strategic investment, the possibility of non-dollar issuance, the likelihood of borrowing being focused at the short end, and the current dearth of investment grade issuance are taken into account the likely impact of this legislation is more muted than it appears at first glance. Introduction There has recently been speculation that a legislative change currently going through the congressional process could result in a surge in corporate bond issuance. On June 17, 2004, the U.S. House of Representatives passed international tax reform legislation known as the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 H.R. 4520 (the JOBS Act) by a vote of 251-178. The Senate approved its version of the legislation, called the Jumpstart Our Business Strength (JOBS) Act S.1637 on May 11. Both bills include a provision that would provide a one-year window that would reduce taxes payable on earnings repatriated from foreign subsidiaries to US corporations. The provision is referred to as the Homeland Investment Act of 2003 H.R. 767 (HIA) in the House version of the bill and the Invest in the USA Act of 2003 S. 596 in the Senate legislation. The bills are now in conference to resolve the differences between the two versions but these negotiations will focus on issues other than the tax window on repatriated earnings. It is not generally expected that a final version of the bill will pass prior to the election, and indeed several commentators put the probability that the legislation passes after the election at less than 50%. If it is successful however, the significant drop in the tax on repatriated earnings (from up to 35% to 5.25%) would create a notable incentive for US companies to increase the dividends paid from offshore subsidiaries in 2005. To the degree that an offshore subsidiary has a high level of retained earnings but is not flush with cash, the dividend could be financed by borrowings and this is what is giving rise to the expectation of increased bond issuance and technical pressure on corporate spreads. Background To The Legislation A primary motivation behind the JOBS Act is to enact new legislation that will replace the Foreign Sales Corporation (FSC) law. Under this law, the US had been providing certain tax breaks for manufactured exports but the European Union challenged this in the World Trade Organization as an export subsidy and had it ruled as illegal in 2000. A subsequent law called the Extraterritorial
Income Exclusion Act (ETI) was likewise declared illegal by the WTO in 2002. The WTO has authorized the EU to impose import sanctions on up to $4 billion worth of US imports a year commencing on January 1, 2004 if the US failed to comply with the ruling and remove the incentives provided under FSC-ETI. However many beneficiaries and members of Congress did not expect the EU to make good on its threat to retaliate and consequently the legislation was not repealed. After waiting for the US to act, the EU began imposing tariffs on March 1 worth 5% of the authorized level. The sanctions have increased the price of the US exports on which they have been applied, directly harming competitiveness in many sensitive industries. The EU has indicated that it will end the sanctions if the US acts expeditiously to repeal FSC-ETI. Alternatively, further delays in the repeal process will result in an increase at the rate of 1% a month (as at August 1, the retaliatory tariff reached 10% and increases will continue to a maximum of 17%). Hence repealing the legislation has a high priority. With regard to the HIA, its inclusion is part of a broader effort to ensure that the necessary reform of the tax code takes place in such a way that fosters US growth and job creation. Proponents argue that the 35% tax rate on repatriated income is a form of double taxation and has created an incentive for US corporations to accumulate profits in offshore subsidiaries when such capital could otherwise be made available for domestic investment, further stimulating US growth. The counter argument that temporary tax moratoriums can work to undermine the fairness and transparency of the tax code has been overwhelmed by political sensitivity to the recalcitrant US employment market in an election year. The additional tax revenue that would be generated by a widespread "one-off" repatriation in 2005 is also appealing given current budgetary pressures. The HIA has received widespread industry support, particularly from sectors that have sizeable profits in offshore operations such as technology and pharmaceuticals. Details Of The Homeland Investment Act/ Invest In The USA Act With final bill yet to be passed the exact nature of the HIA is not certain but, given the details available from the pending legislation, we believe that it will take the following form. For the tax year that applies 120 days after the legislation becomes effective, tax paying US corporations can elect to be taxed at a rate of 5.25% on excess qualified distributions from controlled foreign corporations (offshore subsidiaries) that are described in a domestic reinvestment plan. The excess qualified distribution amount is the excess of any dividends received by the taxpayer over a base amount. The base amount refers to five prior years worth of dividends ending on or before December 2002 and is calculated by excluding the two years during the period in which the highest and lowest payments were made, and averaging the payments made during the remaining three years. The reinvestment plan requires the investment of the dividend in the US, for such purposes as "being a source for the funding of worker hiring and training; infrastructure; research and development; capital investments; or the financial stabilization of the corporation for the purposes of job retention or creation." This requirement has been interpreted broadly enough to suggest that the funds could be used for such purposes as debt repayment or dividend payments.
Likely Response To The Legislation As we noted earlier, passage of the legislation is by no means certain but, given the substantial offshore profits of many US multinationals, the degree of industry lobbying for the legislation that has taken place, and the motivation provided by the will be available, the wide assumption has been that if the HIA becomes law then the amount of repatriation will be significant. According to estimates from the Joint Committee on Taxation, the legislation has the potential to pump as much as $135 billion dollars into the U.S. economy. Other estimates have been even more generous ranging to $300 billion or more. Further, because offshore subsidiaries may not have cash balances available sufficient to fund the possible dividend payment to the US parent corporation it has been forecast that a rash of borrowing will take place in order to monetize the retained earnings and facilitate the dividend limited period for which the tax advantage payments. Such forecasts have translated into concern that the passage of the HIA would result in substantial technical pressure on corporate bond spreads. Although the HIA would certainly increase repatriation and create an incentive for corporate bond issuance, there are several reasons why we believe fears of meaningful spread pressure are overstated. Firstly, there is the question of the competing influence of tax strategy and operational strategy. If US corporations consider the bulk of their retained profits in offshore operations to be, to borrow the terminology of proponents of the legislation, "trapped", then they can capitalize on the opportunity to repatriate them at a substantially lower tax rate without undue concern that they will be forgoing attractive investment opportunities in offshore markets. To the extent that industry lobbying for the HIA has been aggressive it is fair to assume this approach will be adopted to some degree (though we are hard pressed to recall a time when industry lobbying was anything but aggressive on the subject of lower corporate tax rates). Clearly Congress is expecting this to be the result of enacting the legislation. However, the repatriation of profits requires companies to forego tax deferral and embrace tax payment, even if it is at a lower tax rate, and willingly incurring this expense implies that US corporations consider there to be more attractive investment opportunities in the US than in the countries where those retained earnings are currently held. Macro trends such as globalization, foreign outsourcing and the long-term trend to expand into developing markets, particularly in high growth regions such as Asia, run contrary to the belief that the best operational strategy is to concentrate investment in the US. Clearly it is possible to influence strategic investment decisions with tax policy but the degree of success achieved by such policies is often dependent on their fit with broader investment trends. One can cite the increase in dividend payments that has occurred since the 2003 US tax changes that lowered the taxation of dividends as evidence of the power of taxation policy to influence corporate strategy. However, the change also coincided with greater demand for increased dividends given the lackluster price performance of the equity market since it peaked in 2003 and the shift that this caused in investor priorities. As a contrast, the tax changes made in the same year to enhance capital investment have been less effective as uncertainty about the sustainability of demand continues to act as a drag on the capex cycle. With regard to the HIA, the considerations to be taken into account when assessing this are very industry-specific and difficult to forecast given the complex nature of international finance but we would highlight that the potential amount of repatriation can be easily overestimated by simply focusing on the aggregate level of retained offshore earnings. Then on the question of the likely amount of debt issuance that could result from the legislation, where a company does decide to the increase the dividend payment to the US parent and such a payment goes beyond available cash balances and requires borrowing, the question that arises is which is the optimal currency for issuance. Although financial
engineering enables the relatively easy mitigation of exchange rate risk, given that the debt issuance would likely occur at the level of the foreign subsidiary and not the US parent, it may be considered optimal to issue in foreign currencies rather than dollars. There is also the question of target maturities. Issuance done for the purpose of capturing a one-year reduced tax window on retrospective earnings would seem to be better matched by short-term debt than bonds with maturities of five-years or greater. If the legislation passed and we consequently saw a jump in euro-denominated three-year floaters, this is not likely to exert much pressure on dollar corporate spreads or, given the depth of the short-term market in Europe and the appeal of high quality spread product in the industrial sector, would we expect a sustained negative effect on euro-denominated corporate spreads. Making accurate forecasts with regard to these considerations is not possible but once again our conclusion is that it is easy to oversimplify the implications of the legislation and so overstate the likely amount of issuance or spread pressure. Would More Issuance Be A Problem? Our final comment on the question of the likely amount of technical pressure on spreads that could result from this legislation is that estimates should be considered in the context of broader issuance trends. Currently the US investment grade market is on track to deliver our forecast $300 billion of investment grade issuance, which is a 30% drop on last's year $436 billion total. Net issuance has dropped even more substantially and has been running at a negative level in the US for the last five months driven by factors such as higher interest rates, constrained capex investment, a sluggish rebound in M&A markets, flush cash balances from 2002-2003 borrowing programs, and increased cash flow during the 2003 economic rebound. Certainly there are increasing demands on cash flow (such as the increased demand for dividends) and in 2005 we are likely to see higher levels of both capex and M&A activity and consequently, more bond issuance than has been the case this year. But given the prevailing technical squeeze and the likelihood it will continue into yearend 2004, we do not believe that the increase in dollar issuance that can reasonably be expected from this legislative change will become a key factor in medium term spread direction. Another reason for this conclusion is that many of the companies that are candidates to issue to effect repatriation are highly rated and from industries that such as technology and pharmaceuticals that traditionally have made little draw on the corporate bond markets. From the perspective of portfolio exposure, this should ensure that investors have the capacity and the desire to absorb any new deals from these companies and spread pressure is more likely to be related to the usual new issue concession that a sustained trend set in place by technical deterioration.
Related Links Details of the Jumpstart Our Business Strength (JOBS) Act Details of the Homeland Investment Act of 2003 Comparison of House and Senate versions of the legislation List of Companies that support the legislation Louise Purtle lpurtle@creditsights.com Copyright 2005 CreditSights, Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction of this report, even for internal distribution, is strictly prohibited. The information in this report has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable. However, neither its accuracy and completeness, nor the opinions based thereon are guaranteed. If you have any questions regarding the contents of this report, contact CreditSights, Inc. at (1) 212 340-3840 in the United States or +44 (0) 20 7841 2990 in Europe. CreditSights Limited is authorised and regulated by The Financial Services Authority. This product is not intended for use in the UK by Private Customers, as defined by the Financial Services Authority.